Mr. Boyce

Yeah, this is an issue I'm tired of hearing about. Same for "gay rights".

It is surprising there is no collarless scout shirt, as an option if troops want to wear neckerchiefs. Any idea why this is so?

Thanks for posting. It's a scandal to see scout leaders being so dishonest.

It seems like paranoid hysteria to me. Reminiscent of Cold War anti-communism propaganda, but jacked up a bit.

$400! For that I expect GOLD! Nah. . . kidding. Say, anyone else with a weird, decades later, experience?

I just feel stupid I can't recall it. I seem to remember that as a boy I ran into a couple different notions of what it actually is.

. . . you know, these are kind of groovy. It would be great to see them return.

If you had someone who had fulfilled all the requirements for the Hornaday Award, but didn't fill out the paperwork, is it possible to file years later, a much later date, for the award?

I would simply encourage everybody to study the phenomenon of homosexuality for himself or herself, and draw his or her own conclusions, rather than rely on the stereotypes and depictions offered in contemporary media portrayals. The facts are there. Do your own work and study this. You might be surprised at the conclusions you draw.

This is a good discussion. I think America herself has idealistic aspirations. . . and we feel bad about the country when we see these aren't being reached. But there are practical things going on---as well as PC relativism---in how we treat values. ----There are many more split-up families. ----Our economy is not producing jobs that allow for family stability and middle class stability. ----Our overall future is uncertain. ----Our consumer society provides many different entertainment options. This lessens the hold of any kind of organization on its consumers, clients, customers, members. ----I think most Americans deeply respect and love the idea of rational tolerance of others, but I think the PC-boosters overstep this and have said extreme relativism is the only way to demonstrate this. This is heady stuff, hard for most people to handle, especially on the immediate level, and so our efforts to handle values are made much more challenging.

I think the whole scouting movement RESTS on aspirational goals and ideals. It's inspiring to motivate ones' self through ideals: consider the early scout handbooks which talked about George Washington and Valley Forge, knights and brave Indians, etc. It may seem like a lot of foolish hoopla to adults, but kids feel the power of these things as shaping things.

I am a Catholic OA member; the article is preposterous. The Masons, having been in existence for centuries, pretty much were first to define through their practices many of the elements going into ANY kind of organization initiation. They helped to establish the basic concept. But it's a leap of logic to then call the OA Masonic. Mr. Salza needs to cut back on his caffeine intake.

Your decision to continue participating in scouting while going through college is an EXTREMELY wise one: (a) The BSA is a great organization, with great local leaders, solid goals and it genuinely benefits the community and the scouts; (b) Adult scout leaders are cognizant that college work takes time; there are many adult responsibilities, and they can be tailored to your needs; © College can be a VERY involved, VERY focused lifestyle---your world terminates at the campus boundary, it seems. By taking part in BSA activities, you lead a more real, more normal and even more ADULT life than you otherwise would have---and let me tell you, it can be a real breath of fresh air to be able to walk off the campus and be a real person, treated as an adult,and not as a college kid.

The problem isn't tenting. The problem is defining deviancy down.

There is a great deal of work, and money, tied up in promoting the idea that homosexuality is the equivalent of heterosexuality. . . . if only life was that easy! Everything I've read and studied on the issue points to homosexuality as a very different kind of phenomenon. I encourage everybody hear to read on the subject and work past the superficial political blather you hear on TV.

. . . right now, all I got in change.

Don't care for slash pockets; all my change falls out. It's a losing proposition.

I'm going to buy a couple of them. I DO wish they'd not used the computerized sleeked-out logo, but stuck with the basic, more artistic one that's been around forever.

From an earlier thread, it's interesting to note the connections between these kinds of people. One chief commonality is that we're talking about kids who either are ostracized or else are willing to stand on their own two feet and be outside of the popular crowd. Perhaps scouting is losing out to computers, in terms of attracting geeks.

I strongly believe that advocates of the various homosexual social goals tend to HEAVILY DOWNPLAY the negative aspects of homosexuality. I think we know them, or many of them, and yet choose to ignore our reservations simply because no one wants to be perceived as "mean" or "unfair." A lot of tough choices can be avoided out of fear of how others view you, or fear of getting tagged with the famous slam of "homophobic." I think scout policy is ultimately wise.

How often do you go black tie?

One thing I can mention is that boys will, by the time they are 11, have experienced interactions and relations with adult women. Adult women run the show in grade school, if not also high school. I remember how different it was when I had my first male schoolteacher, in 6th grade.

I don't think girls are a negative influence. Neither are women, but I think it's easy to overlook some very subtle things by simply continuing to promote the whole equivalency movement. What do the boys miss out on if the program went co-ed? For my part, I return to the notion that boys need an arena in which they can learn cooperative team work and leadership. Our society, I feel, has overemphasized male competition, through sports and video games, etc., and so it's good and wholesome to advance the proposition that boys can work together on projects in which the notion of "winner" and "loser" do not apply. It's important---real life presents many such situations very different from the formulaic and highly-structured sports games. The level of social complexity is larger, I would argue, in these kinds of endeavors than in sports competition, especially since the goal in sports is usually going to be very immediate and very clear-cut and roles within sports teams are rigidly drawn. It helps with social development. Girls tend to be more cooperation-oriented and much more socially developed than the boys. . . so I think the boys would really lose if the program went coed. You would be putting together two generally different groups, and in the end, doing poor justice to the needs of each. I think, too, that you would find the two groups having very different views of the advancement system. And different views of the importance of the outdoor program.

I'm not saying the following to be a piece of grit in the conversation, but WHY EXACTLY would BSA want to include girls? Just for bigger numbers? I'm not sold------and there are plenty of supportive examples------that bigger is really better. WHY include girls?

There's a great book by Bernard S. Mason called Woodcraft and Camping, published by Dover, so it's inexpensive. It's a great resource on Indian lore, and has a fine section on totem poles.